Rick Perkins

[Automotive Industry, November 21st, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, South Korea's ambassador told Windsor officials that the auto giant, Stellantis, will employ 1,600 workers from South Korea, not Canada, at the $15-billion subsidized battery plant. Every mom on a minimum wage, every couple struggling to pay their mortgage and every union assembly line worker will each pay $1,000 in taxes to subsidize these foreign workers.

After eight years, the Prime Minister is not worth the cost. Will the Prime Minister ensure that all jobs at the Stellantis plant go to Canadian paycheques, not foreign workers?

[Automotive Industry, November 20th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP-Liberal government is subsidizing $15 billion to the giant auto company Stellantis for its Windsor plant to employ up to 1,600 foreign workers. Every mom on minimum wage, every couple struggling with their monthly mortgage payment and every union assembly line worker across this country will pay $1,000 to employ these foreign workers.

After eight years, the Prime Minister is not worth the cost. Will the Prime Minister reverse his decision and commit that all jobs at the Stellantis plant will go to Canadian paycheques and not foreign workers?

[The Environment, November 9th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, eight years times zero targets met is still zero. After eight years of that zero government, Canadians know that its environmental record is nothing but hot air and hypocrisy.

The Bay of Fundy can supply green tidal energy to all of Nova Scotia and make us a net exporter of green energy. The only successful project to harness the power of the Bay of Fundy, delivering endless green energy, was killed by those Liberals when they refused to renew the permit. They killed capital investment in tidal power.

Why does the Prime Minister claim to support green energy but veto green tidal projects?

[National Security Review of Investments Modernization Act, November 9th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, it was an excellent speech, particularly on the issues of the amendments to the bill that we managed to get passed. The bill missed the opportunity to do anything other than administrative changes, so we managed to update it to the geopolitical issues we have today. I am sure the minister will appreciate having those powers.

I would like to expand this a little more, because the Liberals voted against our amendment that would have focused strictly on the issue of headquarters in hostile states. This is a big national security issue. It is not to reject it, but just to make it an automatic review. I am not sure why the Liberals would be afraid to have the power to review it and decide whether they want to reject it on that basis.

[National Security Review of Investments Modernization Act, November 9th, 2023]

Not true. I was there.

[National Security Review of Investments Modernization Act, November 9th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the speech by the hon. member, and it started with a false premise. The hon. member seems to think he is an expert going back to the Investment Canada Act's introduction on how many investments have been approved or not approved through the process. Of course, he said none, which is completely false. Even in the Harper government, just briefly, there were examples. PotashCorp was rejected by the Harper government, as were the sales of the Canadarm to U.S. interests and RADARSAT. Thus, the member should do his homework a little more before he speaks about those issues.

However, on the bill itself, could the member explain why he thinks the government believes that cabinet should not be involved in the decision-making process in any acquisition of a corporation by a foreign entity?

[National Security Review of Investments Modernization Act, November 9th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the hon. member's speech and his answers to questions. What I did not hear from him was an explanation about why he and his colleagues voted against the amendment at committee that would have sent every acquisition by a company headquartered in a hostile state like China or Russia to an automatic national security review. That was a legitimate national security power that we wanted to give the minister, yet the Liberals refused it.

Can the member tell us, please, why his party continues to be soft on China and Russia?

[National Security Review of Investments Modernization Act, November 9th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am just wondering about relevance. We are talking about foreign investment into Canada and about Bill C-34. The hon. member is talking about artificial intelligence and investment in Montreal, which has absolutely nothing to do with the bill.

[Carbon Pricing, November 7th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years, the revolting Atlantic caucus and the panicking, plummeting Prime Minister now have two coalitions with which to flip Canadians the bird. There is the costly coalition with the NDP to drive the cost of everything up. Unfortunately, Canadians know too much about that. The other, according to the Quebec media, is with the separatist Bloc that committed to keep the Liberals in power for another two years.

The costly coalition Prime Minister is not worth the cost. Will the Prime Minister release his full carbon tax coalition agreement with the separatist Bloc?

[National Security Review of Investments Modernization Act, November 6th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I will do something unusual and ask a question about the bill, unlike the Liberal members, who seem to want to talk about everything but the bill.

The bill is about returning cabinet decision-making to the Investment Canada Act process. I know the hon. member is a former international trade minister and knows more than probably anyone on the government side in the House about cabinet decision-making and the role and importance of it. Without it, we have had poor decisions by the now VP for Rogers, former member Navdeep Bains of the government, who basically said that anything China wanted to buy China could have without a national security review.

I wonder if the member would enlighten the House as to the proper way a cabinet decision-making process should be when a hostile state like China is trying to acquire the assets of our country.